Editor’s Note: Malakai King is the ANUSA General Secretary. You can view the opposing view to Malakai’s arguments here.

Editor’s Note (18 May, 17:45 pm): Supporters of the amendments have told Woroni they have been provided with legal advice to the effect that there would be no conflict between ANU statutes and the proposed amendments. Woroni has not seen this advice.

You may have heard from a friend, or seen on social media, that there are changes proposed to how we run the annual elections for the ANU Students ’ Association (ANUSA)

Your elected ANUSA representatives control a budget of over $3.6 million, ensure important services including free breakfast in the BKSS and the Union Pantry, and represent your interests to the University and governments. Right now, students going to vote go through the positions (President, General Secretary, etc.) and pick the person they think is best for each role.

But students from the Labor party’s right-wing faction are trying to change that, and game the system. They’ve proposed a motion to introduce “front-page voting”, a method where each elector casts only one vote for an entire ticket (party), rather than voting by position for the best candidate in each. 

The results of last year’s election would have looked very different if these changes were in place: it would change ANUSA elections from being about the best people for the job to a contest between political factions.

They have also proposed that a ticket must have more than one candidate, so an independent running on their own couldn’t form one. Since only tickets would be on the front page, this means that when you go to vote, you won’t even see independent candidates if you’ve chosen the ‘more convenient’ voting option. This system privileges big, factional tickets and makes it much harder to vote for independents. 

I was elected as an independent to the position of ANUSA General Secretary last year, something that would’ve been almost impossible under the proposed system. I was elected on a platform of accountability, independence, and progressivism. 

I care deeply about making ANUSA elections more accessible, and increasing turnout. I think locking out students who don’t have access to factions and big tickets from the ballot is the opposite of doing that. The work to increase turnout is work that engages students and reorients ANUSA to be in the places that students already are, and care about the issues that students already care about.

At the ANUSA annual general meeting on Wednesday the 20th, all students will have a chance to make their voice heard on this motion. The proposal itself is available as Motion 6.2 in the meeting agenda for your review, and I would encourage you to make your own mind up about it. The proposed changes need a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to pass. 

Here are three reasons why I don’t support these changes, and you shouldn’t either.

1. Who isn’t at the table? 

ANUSA is already an insular space that can be exceptionally hard to break into: at worst, the union executive is run by one clique year after year. It would be so much worse for representation if we entrench the system that the people already running the association hand-pick the next generation of student leaders. 

ANU is a diverse campus. But not everybody on campus is reflected on ANUSA. All seven members of the current ANUSA Executive are domestic, undergraduate students who have lived on-campus. 

By privileging tickets, you are disprivileging the people that they forget about. These are the people who are already invisible to ANUSA. The lack of international, postgraduate, and marginalised communities participating in ANUSA elections has been a long-running issue that only stands to be made worse still by these changes. 

The proposed change all-but-guarantee that all seven members of the ANUSA Executive will be elected together from one ticket. There will not be anybody else in the room to challenge or diversify their viewpoints. This has not historically been the case – in fact,  it has been rare for one ticket to win all seven positions. 

2. Who would’ve lost? 

Under this system, members elected on minority tickets or as independents likely would not have had the chance to get up. These people fall on all sides of politics, and from different parts of the University – it just happens they won their elections.

When I was elected last year, I ran a solo independent campaign, one that could never have succeeded under these proposals. If I supported these changes, I would be pulling the ladder up from behind me, and I refuse to do that. 

It’s not just me this would’ve stopped. There are countless examples of other representatives elected on minority tickets or as independents.

These members have made really important contributions to ANUSA. Some of their achievements include conducting the ANUSA Governance Review, implementing critical financial policy reform, returning money to students’ hands from the University, providing more services to help students in need, and more. 

Some of these students went on to become ANUSA President. Gaining experience in the Executive enabled them to then go on and deliver even greater successes – like Will Burfoot, who went from winning Treasurer on a minority ticket to winning the presidency and overseeing the introduction of the ANUSA Union Pantry, and staunchly fighting Renew ANU. 

And who will win in their places? Students who would not have otherwise been chosen by the student body. These changes make it easier for big tickets to wave through candidates who do not have genuine community backing, by riding along on a wave of candidates who do. That isn’t truly democratic. 

3. Why am I only hearing about this now? Why are the changes so divisive? 

Unprecedented from other changes to the ANUSA Regulations, this change was proposed unilaterally by one faction without consultation amongst our broader community. 

Over the weekend, the ANU Women’s Officer, Disabilities Co-Officers, Queer* Officer and BIPOC Officer have posted their cautions to these changes following growing concerns from the students they represent. In a joint Instagram post, these departments shared that “above-the-line voting could have serious impacts on our autonomy by imposing a voting process that concentrates votes towards big tickets over active community members who are independents”. 

On top of everything else, these changes have serious errors that are likely to conflict with  Australian law – namely, the ANU Governance Rule 2023 (a piece of Commonwealth legislation) that determines how ANU Council members are elected. That alone should demonstrate how little the proposers have thought about the place of this motion within the broader framework of ANUSA’s democracy. 

There’s even more issues to this motion that I haven’t had the chance to touch on, but even just the ones I have are concerning enough to deserve the proposal’s withdrawal, amendment, or voting down.

Conclusion

So why are they being rushed through now? Put short: they want to push these changes through now, so they can drive out other voices in the election this September. 

When the proponents seek to dispel these concerns, you may hear murmurs of amendments that will cure the issues I’ve outlined. I’m always happy to consider improvements to our voting process, and amendments to save this proposal – but so far, I’ve been told that there won’t be any changes that let independents access ANUSA elections fairly. 

Any amendment will have to be accepted by the meeting, by vote, which is why it’s doubly important that you are in attendance on Wednesday to make your voice heard. The Facebook event is available here: https://www.facebook.com/events/25522828587383526.

I remain committed to fighting for a fair and democratic ANUSA, and I hope you’ll join me. See you on Wednesday!